dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Blackwall
Infobox Image (Updated as of 2/16/15) The new infobox image of Blackwall is really cool (I love it!), but wouldn't it make more sense to use an image of Blackwall from the actual game? This looks more like concept art. --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:18, September 26, 2014 (UTC) :Absolutely an in game image would be ideal. But at the moment there is a real shortage of good in game images of Blackwall's face without the helmet in the way. Soon as we get a decent one of those we'll replace this one. - 06:36, September 26, 2014 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me! --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:47, September 26, 2014 (UTC) :I'm not sure if it matters that it's concept art, given that Fenris' is too. It's too bad there's not one that's more of a close-up on his face, though. -- 06:42, September 26, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, whaddya know... I never noticed that about Fenris's pic before. And yes, poor Blackwall is really lacking good closeups, sans helmet. Thanks for the responses! All of this makes sense to me. --Death by Cheese (talk) 06:47, September 26, 2014 (UTC) The current image is not good, it's too small according to me.-- 20:23, November 12, 2014 (UTC) : The new image was uploaded incorrectly and replaced a completely different image which is against image guidelines. I've reverted the file to the previous one, we can probably get something better if needed next week when the game is actually released. Otherwise I think a discussion should be had rather than repeatedly replacing it. -- 22:22, November 12, 2014 (UTC) Update (2/16/15) Which picture should be used in the character infobox? 1. (The current one.) 2. (The new one. Space effective and doesn't stick out as much/"calmer".) My vote goes toward the second one.--Dragonzzilla (talk) 17:24, February 16, 2015 (UTC) My vote is for the 2nd one... looks lot better dunno why.-- 18:48, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Wasn't there a rule to use an image from when the character is first shown? henioo (da talk page) 19:31, February 16, 2015 (UTC) I'm neutral regarding replacing the image. 22:14, February 16, 2015 (UTC) I don't really care for either, but I don't like how much he blends into the dark background on the second one--it makes him not stand out enough in my opinion. The first one shows him much clearer, and the light background makes him pop out more. 23:25, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Possibly romance with Josephine? During party banter you may heard one of the companions(Cole for example) talking with Blackwall about his interest in Josephine(if neither of them is romanced). After hearing one of those conversations, The Inquisitor can ask Blackwall about this and inform Josephine. I sent Blackwall to Wardens, so Josephine said nothing can happen because of that. I tried to see what happens if he is free but I got "Party Banter Not Firing" bug. Soo... Could anyone check is it possible to brought Blackwall and Josephine together somehow? --Konst@ntin (talk) 21:19, December 6, 2014 (UTC) I'm interested in this as well. Heidirs (talk) 23:05, February 16, 2015 (UTC) sounds like it doesn't happen. Heidirs (talk) 23:22, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Vanished... Had just barely completed the Grey Memories; he seems somewhat put out if he wasn't in the party when you update the quest. After the Abyss mission; I made the ring leader tranquil, and refused to judge the other woman who turned herself in. I didn't catch his dis/approval, but he seemed rather genial given the circumstances when I talked to him after. Once that conversation ended, I noticed an exclamation mark on the map in the stable, so I went and talked to him again; we went to the bar, he said he hopes he can live up to the standard I've set for him, and handed me the Warden Badge; then he vanished, he's not in Skyhold, and I can't use him in my party; he better make damn good use of the high-end equipment I crafted him. And just for posterity, we were currently in a romance when the fucker ran off on me. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 21:17, December 7, 2014 (UTC) : Well aren't I a complete moron for skipping through for quick notes instead of reading the damned thing. Shadizar666 (Ruck Rules) 21:30, December 7, 2014 (UTC) The Joining "It is unclear if he underwent the Joining". When I played, he quite clearly stated that he never had the chance to undergo the Joining (as the real Blackwall was dead before he could) and he couldn't go back to Warden HQ to go through it as he was asked to, because he had no proof that he had been recruited (the Joining would've been proof enough) and Blackwall was dead. That's also why he says "all a Warden is, is a promise". It doesn't matter if you've undergone the Joining or not, to him (although really, in a Blight, it kind of does, but that's another matter). It's about protecting the people. He views them more like an order of knights with no Lord or King to serve. It's pretty interesting, actually, to see someone so invested in the Wardens - especially given recent events. I think one of the admins should do his companion quest again and confirm this. I don't expect anyone to take a random poster at face value, but it is stated very clearly in the game that he is not actually a Grey Warden. LordSchmee (talk) 08:29, December 12, 2014 (UTC) Heavy alterations Obviously, spoilers ahead. Do not read before finishing the Grey Wardens plotline in Inquisition. I have noticed that the article was not changed yet to reflect his involvement in the game. As you ignored the heading, you probably well know Blackwall is not Blackwall but Thom Reinier (might be spelled wrong), an Orlesian captain who took the name of a Grey Warden named Blackwall. This poses several problems. One, how do we reflect this in the article without huge spoilers? We would need to think about renaming the article to Thom Reinier, and creating a new one for actual Blackwall, the Warden-Constable. We'd need to remove his title, and the Grey Warden category. Change the heading to omit the mentioning of him being a Warden, for he is not; for example say "Thom "Blackwall" Reiner" is a companion in DA:I". Then explain that he is not a Warden under a spoiler tag. Any thoughts? henioo (da talk page) 05:31, December 16, 2014 (UTC) : I'm completely against such alterations. His name is still Blackwall, regardless of whether or not he took it from someone else. After the quest the Inquisitor asks him what he should be called, and he says they should still call him "Blackwall". Thom Ranier was his name, but he doesn't use it anymore. Also, he identifies himself as being a Grey Warden, even though he never took the Joining. As he says, "All a Warden is, is a promise." To me, that means he counts himself as a Grey Warden, and if he does, I believe the wiki should as well. All of the promotional materials also call him a Grey Warden, and I think we should follow the devs on this like we do with other things. The info about his true former identity and his past can stay safely under a spoiler tag. Also, I believe he said at some point after that quest that he was originally from Ferelden, but I could be wrong on that one. :The promotional materials call him a Grey Warden, undoubtedly, so as to not spoil the reveal that he is not Blackwall. --WTRiker (talk) 07:55, January 8, 2015 (UTC) : I also don't think there is near enough info on the original Blackwall to create an article for him, as he doesn't really meet DA:NOTABLE. -- 05:46, December 16, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, Corypheus considers himself to be a god, or aspires to be one. But we shouldn't call him a god in his article. The truth is that Blackwall isn't a Grey Warden, even if he really wants to be one. Technically, of course. My issue here is with technicality. ::After the revelation takes place in the game I consider "Blackwall" to be his nickname, an assumed name and not an actual name, which should be reflected in the article. ::I think BW called him a Warden on purpose, to not spoil his real identity. If we're going to treat him as an actual Grey Warden, should we do so with Jory, Daveth and Mhairi? They definitely were recruited as was Blackwall, and they even went one step further than him by actually undergoing the Joining. ::As for real Blackwall, I would argue that he is notable enough. One, he is a rank beneath a Warden-Commander, two there is a codex entry with a letter written by him during the Fifth Blight, and three he is the man who inspired Thom to turn his life around. I however don't feel strongly about this, but I wouldn't mind if there was an article on the real Blackwall, either. If such thing happened, we could link it in this article like "For another man named Blackwall, see Blackwall (Warden)" (or something, in the style of Aveline and the original Aveline the chevalier. ::In summary, what I feel strongly about it to not call him a Grey Warden outright as it is now. We need to specify that he is a Warden-Recruit. I don't mind the name of the article staying the same, although we should list his birth name all the same, in the opening of the article, kinda like we call Inquisitor as both Inquisitor and Herald of Andraste. henioo (da talk page) 06:04, December 16, 2014 (UTC) :::I'm going to have to side with Kelcat on this one. I'm all for including clarity behind the spoiler tags but I think the article otherwise should stay as is. - 06:12, December 16, 2014 (UTC) ::: "Iron Bull" is an assumed name, too, you know. . I still feel strongly that he should continue to be referred to as a Grey Warden; I've always considered Warden-Recruits to still be Wardens, as that is listed as part of the Warden hierarchy. True, WoT says that recruits have to undergo the Joining in order to become "true" Wardens, recruits are still included in the Order's hierarchy, and their names are recorded at Weisshaupt if they don't survive. At the very, very least, I am against putting anything like "claims to be a Warden", as I've seen added in the past. That just puts up a big red flag. I'm very much in favor of things being technically correct in most circumstances, but I also don't think it's right to turn the article into one huge spoiler, starting with his original name. It's why we don't have Alistair's article name as Alistair Theirin, or say in Loghain's lead section that he is a potential companion. Both of those things are also technically correct, but they're also spoilers. -- 06:27, December 16, 2014 (UTC) ::::However, it is different with Qunari as they don't have proper names. Anyway, you said the Inquisition should still call him Blackwall, but he also treats it as a title. here's a video of it, which supports my idea of it being a nickname rather than a name he uses. henioo (da talk page) 07:16, December 16, 2014 (UTC) Timeline Is it ever said when exactly Blackwall took on his new persona? I got the impression that it had been a long time, but I don't actually recall seeing anything specific. -- 19:39, December 22, 2014 (UTC) :The codex entry says something like Blackwall was spotted in Val Chevin around 9:37, or something like that. Presumably it was the real Blackwall, so Thom became Blackwall any time between 9:37 and 9:41. henioo (da talk page) 07:58, December 23, 2014 (UTC) Misleading info maybe? Thom Rainier is a warden recruit, the real blackwall was the Warden-Constable. So shouldn't this be corrected? He never took the Joining and according to everyone in Ostagar that makes you a Warden Recruit. And where is the page for actual Blackwall? There's enough information even on such a small character, and there are smaller pages. His title should be "Blackwall", because even he says it himself. StagsKilledDragons (talk) 05:49, December 31, 2014 (UTC) There ia currently a discussion taking place above. You are welcome to take part. henioo (da talk page) 05:09, December 29, 2014 (UTC) page split Should we split Blackwall into "Blackwall" and "Blackwall (Warden)", since there was once a real Blackwall, the one that Thom took the identity of, treating this page as Thom Ranier and his adventures as Blackwall, and the other page being utilized for what we know of the original/real Blackwall? --WTRiker (talk) 07:53, January 8, 2015 (UTC) Contradiction (Spoilers) If Blackwall never performed the Joining, and therefore is not an actual Grey Warden, how has he been getting away with posing as one? Being capable of things such as possessing the maps for Memories of the Grey, the treaties for conscripting, having knowledge on their fortresses, and even performing duties for them? Grey Wardens are supposed to be able to 'sense' one another the way they 'sense' Darkspawn due to the taint. So whenever Blackwall is around another Warden, like Stroud or Alistair, or when he addresses them at Adamant, shouldn't the others have been able to tell he wasn't really a Grey Warden? I doubt they would allow someone to run around calling himself one when he really isn't. It's a bit contradicting, isn't it? Did the creators not notice this plot hole, or did they just brush it off? -- (talk) 17:59, January 15, 2015 (UTC)CrimsonRaine Rename and restructure After playing through the game a couple more times, I'm changing my mind about possible changes to this article to deal with the whole "he's not really a Warden" thing. I think we should rename the article to Thom "Blackwall" Rainier. I think it's important to keep the name Blackwall in the article title, since that's the name he goes by the most. Then turn Blackwall into a soft redirect to this page. We can cut out the part about him being a Grey Warden in the lead, and since both Background and Involvement are behind spoiler tags, we can do a bit of rearranging to avoid calling him a Grey Warden, then go into greater detail about his companion quest and real name, etc etc (which still needs to be done regardless). I'd like to keep his approval and dialogue pages as just "Blackwall", though, just because it seems simpler to me. If it's decided that the real Blackwall warrants his own article, I'm on the fence about what to name it. Blackwall (Warden) might cause confusion for readers. Maybe Blackwall (Historical)? -- 02:47, February 2, 2015 (UTC) I myself am fine with the page staying as Blackwall, because otherwise it would look silly with quotation marks in the name, I think. For me it is either Blackwall or Thom Ranier, but then then there is the war table quest called Thom Rainier's Fate, which would be spoilerish to a newcomer, as they would realise you can decide the faith of Blackwall. Then in the opening of the article we'd use the nickname as Thom "Blackwall" Reinier. For the real BlackWall, I don't mind calling him "Blackwall (Historical)", and then link to it in this article as "For the man who inspired Blackwall, see Blackwall (Historical)". You mentioned removing mentioning of him being a Warden. Do we do the same with the infobox, or do we list him as a Warden-Recruit? henioo (da talk page) 19:29, February 9, 2015 (UTC) I'd rather keep the page as Blackwall and just do a redirect if searching for Thom Rainer. The character is known more commonly as Blackwall, so I think that's what the page should reflect. Heidirs (talk) 22:42, February 16, 2015 (UTC) I don't think there is enough information for the historical blackwall to warrant a page. Maybe a few lines in the trivia section.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 18:03, February 18, 2015 (UTC)) So is anything gonna happen with this or what? Now the page has been renamed, but Gordon is not Blackwall's name, it is the name of Gordon Blackwall, the original person Blackwall stole the identity from. The article should remain as just Blackwall, as that's how this particular character calls himself in the game, i think. henioo (da talk page) 15:51, June 10, 2015 (UTC) I'm not really sure what to do about the Blackwall-Rainier spoiler issue, but Blackwall never uses the name "Gordon", even if that is the name of the man he's impersonating. So I agree that "Blackwall" should be the name of the article. If the original isn't getting his own page, I think the article should be a blurb about Gordon Blackwall's background and life and then Thom Rainier's under a spoiler tag. The current structure is confusing because it discusses Thom Rainier's backstory using the name "Gordon Blackwall"Ravenfirelight (talk) 16:26, June 10, 2015 (UTC) Trivia Dialogue I was thinking the dialogue for Blackwall in combat, when he says the phrase "Done and done!", might be a reference to Baldur's Gate since one of the protagonist's voices says the same phrase. My edit was removed by another editor so I thought I'd bring it up here instead (which I probably should have done in the first place, sorry). This is the original text I had, with a link to the Baldur's Gate dialogue, before it was removed: "Throughout gameplay, Blackwall will occasionally say the phrase "Done and done." This may be a subtle reference to BioWare's earlier Baldur's Gate series, in which one of the male voice options for the protagonist would say the same line delivered in a similar manner." It was removed because this is apparently a common phrase, the implication being that the connection is coincidental. I'm from Yorkshire and haven't heard anyone say this in real life before, I'm the only one I know who says it and it's only because of Baldur's Gate that I do; I've also looked it up and it doesn't appear to be all that common elsewhere either. I personally think it'd be fun to include as a little piece of trivia, even if it isn't a deliberate reference. Anyway, let me know what you guys think :) Vespus (talk) 19:06, June 9, 2015 (UTC) : It's a very common saying that I've heard lots of times before, and use myself quite a lot. Like some other dialogue I've seen I have a feeling that it's just a recycle of generic battle dialogue rather than a deliberate hat-tip--it' said by a few characters in the Mass Effect series as well. And if it's not a deliberate reference, by DA:TRIVIA guidelines it shouldn't be included. -- 19:28, June 9, 2015 (UTC) : Hi Kelcat. I've played through all the Mass Effect games and don't remember hearing anyone say that phrase. Could you direct me to the characters that say it? It would be interesting to hear :) I do know also know that Mass Effect had some dialogue that was definitely a reference to dialogue in Baldur's Gate (see the third bullet point in Tali's trivia section). Regarding the trivia guidelines, I would have thought this would count as "adding facts that allow readers to draw their own conclusions". : Vespus (talk) 10:45, June 10, 2015 (UTC)